Partly allowed

Ganpat and Ors. v. Mangla Ram Andors

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2021SAW/147/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appeal to bring legal heirs of the deceased petitioner on record after condoning delay. The writ petition filed in 1981 was then heard on merits and dismissed, as the lower authorities' conclusion on the lack of evidence for a better road was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the appeal to bring legal heirs on record; dismissed the writ petition on merits.

Ganpat and Ors. Vs Mangla Ram Andors — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 147/2010

¶4

Ganpat Son Of Bishna Ram (Since Deceased)

¶5

1/1. Sheesh Ram S/o Ganpat,

¶6

1/2. Hari Ram S/o Ganpat

¶7

1/3. Gomati Devi Widow of Ganpat

¶8

Rameshwar Son Of Baluram

¶9

Sajjan Singh Son Of Bishna Ram

¶10

Ram Karan Son Of Baluram Deceased Through Lrs:-

¶11

4/1. Smt. Mohari Devi widwo of Ram Karan

¶12

4/2. Hari Ram S/o Ram Karan

¶13

4/3. Sri Ram S/o Ram Karan

¶14

Sugna Ram Son Of Bishna Ram, all residents of Village Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu

¶15

----Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

Manglaram Son Of Chandaram Deceased Through Lrs:-

¶18

1/1. Gugan Ram S/o Mangala Ram

¶19

1/2. Mohar Singh S/o Mangla Ram

¶20

1/3. Jai Singh S/o Mangla Ram

¶21

Jagan Singh Son Of Gopal, residents of Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu

¶22

The Gram Panchayat, Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu

¶23

The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer

¶24

The Revenue Appellate Authority-Ii, Jaipur

¶25

The Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with Mr. Laxmi Kant For Respondent(s) :

¶28

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Order

(2 of 3)

[SAW-147/2010]

10/12/2021

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04/02/2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1216/1981. The facts are somewhat peculiar. After the writ petition was filed in the year 1981, it was noticed that petitioner Mangla Ram expired in the year 1983 but no application for bringing the legal representatives on record was filed till 1988. After filing such application also, there was considerable delay in seeking condonation in pursuing such application. Such application was dismissed by the learned Single on 24/07/1997. This order was challenged in Special Appeal (Writ) No.731/1998. The Division Bench vide order dated 07/02/2008 remanded the case before the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The Single Bench once again dismissed the application for bringing legal heirs on record vide order dated 04/02/2009 upon which this fresh appeal was filed.

¶34

It can thus be seen that a small question of bringing legal representatives of the deceased petitioner on record has remained pending since nearly 20 years after his death and the question of merit in the writ petition have been quite completely sidetracked.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are prepared to accept that taking liberal standards for bringing legal heirs of the deceased litigant on record, the learned Single Judge could perhaps have entertained the application for such purpose. We are therefore prepared to allow the appeal to that extent and bring legal heirs of deceased on record after condoning delay. However, in view of the fact that the issues are more than two decades old and the writ petition itself was filed in the year 1981, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the

¶36

(3 of 3)

¶37

[SAW-147/2010]

¶38

matter also. Writ petition is placed before this Court for such purpose. We have perused the orders challenged in the writ petition and find that concurrently on facts the revenue appellate authority and the Board of Revenue have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of a better road to the fields of the respondent No.1. such findings are not shown to be perverse.

¶39

No interference is called for.

¶40

The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is heard on merit and

is dismissed.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

Anil Goyal/B.M. Gandhi-11

Ganpat and Ors. v. Mangla Ram Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat and Ors. v. Mangla Ram Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Kamal Jain D/O Shri Deepak Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr Rohit Labana S/O Shri Ramesh Chandra Labana Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rita Shekhawat D/O Shri Sampat Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Harphool Singh S/O Late Shri Cheta Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jai Singh S/O Shri Ram Sahai Vs Shri Devendra Bhushan Gupta

State of Rajasthan Vs Suryakant S/O Shri Dharamveer Singh